Episode 2069 Scott Adams: Trump Arraignment, AI Rewrites History More Woke, Escape Cities
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump Arraignment
AI makes copyrights obsolete
AI writes history more woke
Woke is a stolen word
Move out of cities now
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that have never been known before, an enjoyment which you could only imagine until now, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass.
So I lost my little cheat note of what I say before the show.
But that's okay because it's written on my mug.
Except the first word is missing on my mug.
And I don't remember what it was.
Probably a cup or a mug or a flask?
Cup or a mug or a glass?
Tank or chalice or stein?
A canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Man, when you lose it in the first second of a live stream, it will never come back.
Let me tell you something about presentations.
The first minute decides how the entire thing goes.
Like if the first minute goes really well, everything goes well after that.
But when it goes this way instead, there's not a chance that this will be good.
We're off to the wrong foot.
But still, we're going to have the simultaneous sip.
And we're going to try to recover from here.
Because do we quit?
No, we do not quit.
We push forward.
Go.
I can't believe I picked the one mug out of my cupboard that had the missing words.
Oh no.
Well, how many of you watched the Trump arraignment?
We'll talk about that.
I'm going to do a few short stories before that as people pour in.
They'll be pouring in to get my comments on this.
Well, the funniest thing that happened, I guess yesterday, was that Twitter labeled NPR state-affiliated media on Twitter.
So Twitter likes to tag any propaganda sites from other countries.
So if there's a Chinese state-affiliated person, they'll put that right in the bio so you can't miss it.
So something like RT Russia Today might have that little warning.
Well, Musk started putting that, or Twitter did, started putting that on NPR.
State-affiliated media.
In other words, you're supposed to not believe their news.
Twitter actually has a permanent label on NPR that it's not to be believed.
What do you say about that?
And then, of course, he got some pushback, and Musk just took the definition of state-supported media and published it and said, that looks about right.
Now, there was some pushback.
Somebody said that only 2% of NPR's funding comes from the government.
Does that sound right to you?
Does it sound like only 2% of their funding comes from the government?
No, that sounds like a lie, doesn't it?
I mean, it's something I saw on Twitter, but it looked like somebody who knew what they were talking about, but it can't be real, could it?
If it were 2%, it probably would have gone to zero.
That's my theory.
If it ever got down to 2%, probably the public would have said, wouldn't it be better at zero?
I mean, is that 2% really making all the difference?
Wouldn't it be better for the government just to be out of that business?
I've got a feeling it's more than 2%.
Oh, somebody says 100% of the news.
I don't know about that, but that's a claim I'm seeing there.
Well, I just think it's hilarious.
It may be a little overstated, but not much.
It makes me wonder, why would NBC not be considered state-affiliated media?
It's not just because they're funded.
Right?
Isn't NBC the one that Glenn Greenwald always says the CIA basically controls them?
Or at least controls some stories that they publish.
Wouldn't it be perfectly accurate for Twitter to call NBC a state-affiliated media?
Or MSNBC?
I don't know.
Well, I guess you'd have to prove it, so that might be the problem.
Babylon Behead, as it often does, the best comment on everything.
You know, we keep talking about kids being sexualized by all the trans-related information and events.
And, you know, people are getting all worked up, Those children are getting sexualized.
And then the bad blonde bee says, we need to protect our kids from inappropriate teaching on sex.
Say, parents who let their kids have a smartphone?
Oh.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, that's a good point.
The smartphone usually doesn't kick in until, what's the common age today?
11 or 12?
That's when the kid gets a smartphone.
But the kids are being taught stuff at age 6, right?
6 and 7.
So they're, you know, the Babylon Bee.
I just saw a terrible meme.
The Babylon Bee isn't exactly accurate, but in terms of humor, it's perfect.
Yeah, you know, we do just give away our upbringing of our kids.
Here's the first AI-related story.
I've got a feeling all the stories will be AI in the future.
Don't you?
At least until I'm replaced by AI.
I'll just be talking about it until that's all it is.
One of the stories says, suppose you had an AI step-parent.
An AI step-parent.
And you put that personality into a kid's phone so the kid couldn't get rid of it.
And then the AI on the phone simply monitors the kid without your knowledge.
So in other words, the parents might be unaware what the kid is looking at, but not the AI that's built into their phone.
So the AI that's in the phone would say, when you put in that naughty URL, The AI in the phone would say, um, Billy, I don't think that's good for you.
Um, would you like to see something on Instagram instead?
Well, think about it.
AI, tell me if I'm wrong, could AI not tell what was inappropriate content every time?
I think it could.
I think it could identify inappropriate content every time.
So you wouldn't have to worry about censoring your kid's phone.
You just put the AI parent on there, and the AI virtual parent would just say, no, Billy.
Billy, do not look at that website.
I'm going to block that for you.
Maybe you should look at something about nutrition instead.
Right?
And what about an AI that takes over for the algorithm?
Do you think AI could game the algorithms on behalf of the user so that it would start giving them wholesome and affirming kinds of content?
Because if you could get the AI to select things on your behalf, it could game the algorithm by selecting things when you're not there.
And then after it's selected enough things while you're not there, the algorithm at the social media would be trained To give you more of what your AI had trained it to give you, which would be a whole bunch of positive things.
Maybe.
Anyway.
But if you're worried about censorship and phones, I think AI is going to be all of that.
Why wouldn't it be?
Can you think of any reason why it wouldn't go in that direction?
That's the most valuable... Well, I would say it might be the most valuable application of AI Except for maybe figuring out how to do fusion or something.
I mean, that would be way up there.
If you could actually program children to be more productive, happy citizens, because they're using their phone all day anyway, wouldn't that be insanely valuable?
Like, just incredibly valuable?
Something to think about.
Yeah, we'll get to Trump.
Of course we'll get to Trump.
Of course.
But first, Thomas Massey had a tweet today about something to scare you, also AI related, of course.
So the Chief Innovation Officer at the National Archives is talking about using AI to literally rewrite history to make it more woke.
So, in other words, to get rid of what they call the inherent bias in the existing records.
Now, I do believe the records have an existing bias.
No argument there.
I'm sure history has a bias.
But are you at all worried about AI rewriting human history?
Does any of that scare you?
It scares Thomas Massey, and it scares the hell out of me.
So, we're going to come into some strange times, which is, we know our history is fake, right?
Kind of do.
You know, here's a question I have.
How many books will AI be able to consume?
Because AI is only going to have access to what it has legal access to, and what is digitized.
So there might be a whole field of knowledge that AI doesn't immediately have access to, because it's not as digitized as it could be.
Or it would have to buy it, and maybe it'd be too expensive to buy all the books on Amazon or something.
So there might be some holes in its knowledge for a while, but not very long.
So imagine telling AI to rewrite history.
Hey AI, Go rewrite history, but take into account all of the books written by scholars in different countries, as well as all the scholars who have written things in America.
What would that look like?
How would AI decide what was real and what was credible?
If it just took a consensus of what other countries thought was the history of the United States, plus what the United States thought its own history was, that wouldn't look anything like American history.
If AI wrote it, it would look at all the other opinions of America, because those are valid.
Just because it's our country doesn't mean we have the right history, because other people could watch it at the same time, right?
If they wrote about it differently than we wrote about it, well that would be a question, wouldn't it?
Who wrote about it accurately?
So if AI rewrites history, not just to make it less biased, but to make it more accurate, because you know somebody's going to do that, what does that do?
We're supposed to be learning from history, but history will keep changing?
This could be very unsettling.
We won't know.
Yeah, we won't even know who won wars.
We won't know why wars started.
We won't know who won.
We won't know why anybody won.
Because it might just change.
All right.
Here's a horrible story, then we'll talk about Trump.
Tech executive Bob Lee, founder of Cash App, And he was a, I guess he was notable a tech person in San Francisco.
43 years old and he was stabbed to death in San Francisco on the 300 block of Main Street.
Now this caught my attention not only because it was a horrible tragedy and we feel bad for Bob Lee's family and friends, but this is the same block that I was attacked with a knife.
So I was mugged by a street person with a very large knife.
It was sort of the Crocodile Dundee size knife and this was in the 80s.
So in the 80s I was robbed Why do you say gunpoint?
Well, I was a bank teller in downtown San Francisco.
Once by gun on the street, once by a very large knife exactly where he was stabbed to death.
Same block.
I looked at the picture to make sure I was remembering it correctly.
Same place.
Same place.
And I had one gun pointed at my head and the trigger was pulled but there was no round in the cylinder.
What do you call it?
Cylinder?
And let's see, my apartment was robbed once, my car was broken into three times, lost three car stereos.
Yeah, in the revolver, in the chamber.
It had no round in the chamber.
It was kind of an exciting day when somebody points a gun at your head and pulls the trigger.
You remember that for a long time.
So here's my only comment.
There was a time in, let's say, the early 2000s where I was visiting San Francisco and walking down the street and I remember saying to myself, wow, this place used to be a lot rougher.
Now it's all gentrified and yuppies and full of high-tech people.
And I was actually impressed at how San Francisco had gone from the 80s being a pretty dangerous place Very dangerous place, honestly.
To what I thought was a model city.
Like one of the best places you could ever walk around.
Felt totally safe.
At least walking in the main places you felt totally safe.
But apparently we've lost all that.
Now the only thing I'm going to add to the story is these things might be cyclical.
I tend to think that cities are dead.
I think they're dead.
I think the next time the cities will be alive is when robots rebuild them.
That could be a while.
I don't think people are going to rebuild cities.
I just don't think they make any sense.
Because there doesn't seem to be enough willingness to put the law enforcement resources there that would be needed for them to be survivable.
So I would just get away from cities.
Yeah, if you have a choice, if you have any options whatsoever, just get antacids.
Because I don't think they're coming back until the robots can rebuild them in 50 years or whatever.
All right, let's talk about Trump's arraignment.
Well, it feels like things are back to normal.
And by normal, I mean all the news is about Trump.
And if it's not about Trump, well, we don't care.
I mean, we do care, but it feels like he once again sucked all of the energy out of the news business.
Nobody does it like he does.
He can suck energy out of the news business like nobody's ever sucked energy.
On YouTube, does it look like I'm too bright?
And by that I mean lighting, not intelligence.
Am I overlit on YouTube?
What do you think?
Because it looks about right.
Yeah, it looks about right.
Let me see if I can make a quick adjustment here.
This could go very wrong.
But maybe yes.
Well, we'll go for that.
We're going to go with that for now.
All right, so Trump got arraigned in New York.
The funny part of the story is that by complete coincidence, It's a little too dark, but we're gonna go with it for now.
But by complete coincidence, the court ordered Stormy Daniels to pay back $120,000 in legal fees on top of the legal fees she already had to pay back.
That's too dark, isn't it?
Too dark.
I'll get this right.
So what are the odds that the Stormy Daniels story would come out at the same time as the Trump arraignment?
Can we calculate that story?
Because probably it could have happened any time in the year.
So it's like a 1 in 365 chance that any one of them would have happened.
All right, help me with the statistics.
There are two events That are not correlated.
What are the odds that they happen on the same day in the same year?
It's 1... It's 1 out of 365 times 1 out of 365, right?
1 365th times 1 365th?
No just once?
and a 365, right?
What, 1/365 times 1/365?
No, just once?
Oh, because the first one is a given.
So the first one is a given.
So it's only the second one you have to look at.
And then the second one has a 1 in 365 chance of being on that same day.
Got it.
OK.
Yeah.
No, that's right.
Yeah, it's 1 in 365.
Because one of them is just a given.
At some point, it's a given.
And then the other one just has to match it.
1 in 365.
So it was very unlikely, but it happened.
I think I figured that out.
All right, with your help.
So, even CNN at first was underwhelmed by the quality of the charges.
And if you've lost CNN, you've lost... you're in bad shape.
But thankfully, Jake Tapper found a way to make it sound like it was more important than it was by saying that there were 34 felony counts Uh, and if you leave out some of the context, such as... Oh, no, here's the way he said it.
Uh, that he was talking to legal people, and they said that the 34 misdemeanor counts were fairly strong.
But there was lack of specificity on the alleged federal crime that the misdemeanors were supposed to be covering up, which would elevate them to felonies.
It's all very complicated.
But here's something that Jake did not mention when he said that the 34 misdemeanors were fairly solid.
Here's something that I would have mentioned.
The statute of limitation had run out for all of them.
Do you think that would be important?
You know, just as something to mention.
If you're mentioning that the charges are solid, wouldn't you mention that they're also past the statute of limitations?
That feels important.
Because I believe the only way that They can be made legal, you know, within the statute of limitations, is if you can revive this nebulous other charge that they're related to, and then it's the other charge in the statute of limitations which would be applied backwards to the misdemeanor.
Does any of that make sense?
Is there any lawyer here to tell me I'm full of shit?
Because I'm sure I am.
I have no idea if I'm explaining this correctly.
But I do know that if you don't mention that genuine lawyers believe it's past the statute of limitations, you have not accurately told the story.
Jake.
Jake, Jake, Jake.
Number two, do you think that at the same time he said there are 34 solid misdemeanors, do you think it would have been important maybe to mention at the same time that it's really just one charge?
Do you think that clarifying that the way the law works is every time you make a journal entry, or write a check, or produce an invoice, or pay your taxes, if it's all about the same transaction, it's just one thing you did that they're going to count 34 times.
Now, I'm sure that they mentioned it.
But if you don't mention it at the same time every time, that's not news.
That's bullshit.
Right?
Here's how to tell the news accurately.
There are 34 charges that stem from one alleged inappropriate action.
Just one thing.
Mischaracterizing a payment.
The one thing, according to experts, is past the statute of limitations.
The only way to recover that thing, and to make it still illegal past the statute of limitations, is if the courts, or the jury I guess, decided that the other crime, which is unspecified, unspecified, It's an arraignment in which the entire point is to show the defendant what they have to defend against, and they didn't tell him.
They told him the 34 things that are past the statute of limitations, and they didn't tell him, specifically, the crime that makes the other ones important.
That is as close to an absolute nothing as anything could be.
His risk at this point, his legal risk, on a scale of 1 to 10, it's kind of zero, isn't it?
Wouldn't you say his legal risk is zero?
Because the experts are saying that his next court appearance is December, which is crazy to me, the fact that you have to wait till December.
Now, I know his lawyers want as much time as possible too, but it's just crazy how long things take.
But by then, the experts, the lawyers say, some higher court will have thrown it out.
So this entire thing is over literally trumped-up charges.
And by the way, what were the odds that somebody named Trump would be brought up on trumped-up charges?
Like literally trumped-up charges.
It's just such a weird world.
And then the guy who did it, Bragged about it.
And his name is Bragg.
He bragged about all of his good work.
In fact, when he gave his talk, most of it was bragging about all the things he's done and the experience he has and the years he's done it and how he's always very thorough.
His entire talk was bragging.
True.
And who is the most famous bragger in the world?
If you had to pick one person, the most famous bragger in the world, it's Trump!
Trump is the most famous bragger in the world.
And he got taken down by somebody named Bragg.
I mean, come on!
Come on!
It's a little bit too on the nose.
That's how you know we're a simulation.
We are breathing this into existence.
So the most entertaining outcome seems to be happening.
This is pretty entertaining.
And I'm pretty sure he's not in any legal trouble in the end.
So what does the news say when they need to get clicks and they realize that the first of his more than one legal problems turns out to be a big nothing?
It's a big nothing.
So what do they say when they find out that the current legal problems are a big nothing?
Well, wait until this next one.
Okay, okay.
I'm willing to accept that maybe the walls are not closing in on this Stormy Daniels payment stuff.
Probably it's either just misdemeanors or misdemeanors that are already expired and nothing.
Probably a big nothing.
It's underwhelming.
But wow, wow, do they have him on this box gate.
Oh, the box hoax.
Not the box hoax, I mean the box gate.
Those Mar-a-Lago boxes, man, whoa!
We got them now, don't we?
Don't we?
We got them now!
We still don't know what was in the boxes.
How did we get to this point without knowing what's in the boxes?
If those boxes had anything in them that was national security related, you don't think we'd know about that?
Really?
Really?
You don't think we would know already if there were sensitive national security secrets in those boxes?
Boxgate is going to be ridiculous.
Now, apparently, they're going to try to make the real story not about what's in the boxes.
Do you know why?
Do you know why the real story is not going to be about the contents of the boxes?
Because there's nothing important in the boxes.
That's why.
Because there was nothing in there but mementos and unimportant stuff.
So now that has to be about the cover-up or the resisting the rules.
Do you know how easy it's going to be to defend against the idea that there was some resistance or cover-up or something like that?
Let me explain the entire defense.
Mr. Trump, did you tell anybody to resist giving boxes back?
No?
And the end.
Because unless they have some evidence where somebody says, yes, the President, the President, the President, you know, Trump, told me not to give them these secrets back.
Do you think that's going to happen?
Do you think there's a human being Who in the real world was told by Trump to keep these boxes secret and don't give it back, and that that person, whoever that is, is going to testify that that happened.
Do you think that's going to happen?
Because I don't see any other way he gets convicted, do you?
Do you think there's an email where Trump said it?
No, he doesn't do email.
Do you think he sent a text?
No.
Do you think there's a recorded phone call?
No.
At most, at the very most, he whispered in somebody's ear or didn't.
And my guess is he didn't.
Now here's the most likely thing that happened.
We thought we returned all the boxes.
But we were wrong.
There were some more boxes.
That's probably going to be the whole story.
Or, I told Bob to give you all the boxes, but when we talked to Bob, he thought you meant only the boxes that were marked a certain way.
It's just going to be somebody miscommunicated.
That's going to be the entire case.
It's like, oh, it wasn't Trump.
It was Bob told Joe and Joe didn't understand Bob so they didn't get everything back the way it probably should have and so there was some miscommunication.
It's going to be that.
There's going to be nothing to this story.
It's just going to disappear.
And that's what they're hoping for.
They're hoping that's the big one but I don't think it is.
Another part of the story involved the number of charges, 34 charges, and apparently in the legal profession, if it were a federal crime, there would be guidance against doing that.
Do you know why, if it were a federal crime, if it were a federal court, do you know why there would be guidance to not You know, push it up to 34 counts when it's really just one action?
It's because it makes bias.
If you hear there are 34 charges, you think, well, some of them gotta be real.
But it's really one thing.
So, you should treat it more like it's one thing.
Or a few things so that you're not trying to influence some future jury that, man, he did so many things, you've got to find him guilty on at least a few of them.
Must be something he did with all that smoke.
So this is an all that smoke, there must be fire persuasion and should not be part of the legal system.
But apparently at the state level, there's no specific guidance not to do that.
So he did it.
So Bragg did it.
He just made it look like it was a lot of charges.
And he even threw in some stuff about the National Enquirer and McDougall and Packer.
And it turns out those have nothing to do with the charges.
He threw in a whole story of bad behavior that he's not charging them for and is not directly related to the charges.
Who does that?
That's the most biased thing I've ever seen in my life.
Throwing in an unrelated story that you're gonna... It's unrelated.
I mean, you could say they both involve women, but it's pretty unrelated.
All right.
So the fact that no specific charge was mentioned that would make the misdemeanors felonies, That's so sketchy.
I mean that's that's beyond the sketchiest of the sketchiest thing I've ever seen in the legal system.
Apparently Trump already raised eight million dollars as of yesterday I guess off of this controversy.
But what did you think of Trump's speech afterwards if you saw it?
So Trump goes back to Mar-a-Lago and gives a teleprompter speech mostly.
All right, let me see your comments before I tell you mine.
I'm reading them off, some of them.
Too long.
Boring.
Good.
Good.
Boring.
Tired.
Sounded tired.
Boring.
All right.
Here's my take.
I thought it was a poor performance.
Poor.
I don't say that often.
Maybe never.
I don't know if I've ever said that about Trump.
I thought it was a poor performance.
By his standards.
You know, maybe it wasn't a poor performance by an ordinary politician.
But for him it was low energy.
It was backwards looking.
It was filled with grievance.
And it did not have a forward looking sort of positive message at all.
And I'm stealing that comment from Van Jones, because he said the same thing on CNN, but he said it better.
So, credit to Van Jones, as always.
In my opinion, the best CNN commentator.
Because that's what I saw, too.
I saw a backwards, grievance-filled, unimpressive, A laundry list of stuff.
I just didn't see the Trump I expected to see.
Now people said he looked tired, which he did.
He looked tired.
Other people have speculated that because the judge told him not to cause any violence through his rhetoric, that he may have intentionally toned it down.
But it didn't look like that.
It didn't look like the only problem was he was toning it down.
I'll tell you what it looked like to me.
And I'm just speculating, right?
I'm only speculating and it only has to do with how I would feel in the same situation.
I don't think his wife is happy with him.
Do we agree?
Imagine poor Melania who can't leave the house for as long as this is going on.
She can't leave the house.
Because if she leaves the house, everybody's going to say, hey, here's a picture.
What do you think of Stormy Daniels?
What do you think of Stormy Daniels?
How about McDougal?
McDougal, Stormy Daniels.
Melania, Melania is probably ripping Trump's balls off every day.
He looked like, here's my bottom line, Trump gave a speech like a man who's having marital problems.
That's what it looked like.
It looked like somebody who's got a problem with his wife, and it bothers him a lot.
Which is okay.
Which is okay.
Because that would be the most human thing that you could imagine.
And I do like knowing he's human.
I like knowing Trump is human.
We'll see if under a different context he can, you know, come back to life.
But that day, That very day when he's being arraigned for that charge and it's all the news and it's the only news, Melania had to be super upset.
Agree?
Is there any way Melania had a good day?
No.
And I think that Trump is not immune from, you know, happy wife, happy life.
He looks like somebody whose personal life had been torn apart.
And he was just trying to get through the rest of the day.
That's what it looked like to me.
So I don't think it was necessarily just fatigue, although I bet there was some.
I don't think it was necessarily that he had such a bad day in the legal system, because in a way it was kind of good for him.
It looked like he had some personal issues.
And he should have.
I mean, if anybody deserved a personal issue, I mean, he brought it on himself, of course.
I don't know.
To me that seems like the biggest possible... Yes, it's mind reading and speculation.
So I like to use speculation instead of mind reading.
Because when I'm speculating, I'm telling you I don't know.
But if you say somebody is thinking, that's mind reading.
Because you don't know.
But if you say that's what I would think in that situation, I think that's fair.
Alright.
Wall Street Journal was pretty hard on the prosecution, as you can imagine.
Now, in my opinion, I want to see how many people believe or agree with this.
In my opinion, the whole idea of prosecuting a past or potential president started with Trump.
And it started when he did the locker up stuff with Hillary.
To me, Trump started this precedent by looking serious about locking up a competitor for president, and I think it's just coming back to him.
I always thought it was a huge mistake.
I never liked the lock him up stuff.
It was kind of funny, but I thought it went way too far, and I thought he should have You know, it's not his personality to stop that sort of thing, but in a perfect world, that wouldn't have happened.
Because I don't think that was healthy for the country.
I think every time I heard chanting of, lock them up, I said to myself, you realize that's increasing your chances of getting locked up, right?
And it did.
Yeah.
I mean, I think the number of Republicans who are being haunted Right now from the J6ers to Trump to anybody else has a little bit to do with the fact that top Democrats were were threatened with jail in a historical context in which jail didn't happen very often.
Now obviously whatever Hillary did or did not do would have been different different allegations of course.
Yeah I think I think Trump started the whole Put a politician in jail thing at the highest level and it just came back to bite him in the ass.
And if I had been Hillary Clinton, if I had been Hillary Clinton and I knew that, because remember there's, isn't there an audio or email from Hillary in which she indicated she was literally afraid that they would all be locked up?
That's true, right?
Don't we have evidence that Hillary was actually literally afraid that they would all go to jail?
Now, if that was the case, and if I were Hillary, and I was actually believed I might go to jail because of my competitor, I would make sure that I did everything I could do to put him in jail.
That would be my response.
And it looks like the Democrats have this full intention of putting Trump in jail any way they can.
So to me, this is just Hillary's revenge.
It's just working out through the democratic machine.
Yeah, it's just Hillary's revenge.
So, this would suggest that if Trump becomes president, you'd probably try to put Hillary in jail again.
Probably.
If there's any reason to do it.
But I would be just as opposed.
Alright, Vivek Ramaswamy played this situation the best.
He immediately and clearly and loudly said that he would pardon Trump if he were president.
That's pretty clear.
But he went further, and here's the brilliant part.
He said he would pardon everybody who is politically prosecuted.
So that would include the gentleman who just got prison time for a meme about the election.
I assume it would include some January 6th people.
And when I heard that, I said to myself, that is exactly what I wanted to hear.
That is exactly what I wanted to hear.
That somebody would try to get, in my case, what I would call overcharged conservatives out of jail.
Because remember, it's especially egregious in the context of The progressives wanting to have less jail time for everybody.
Really?
Less jail time for everybody except the president?
Yeah.
And political people.
All right.
Rasmussen did a poll if Biden versus Trump ran.
Before I tell you the answer, who do you think wins in a matchup between Biden and Trump if it were today?
Who do you think would win Biden versus Trump election today?
No new information, election today.
You're saying Trump?
I see a lot of Trumps.
I think that's mostly wishful thinking.
Rasmussen poll agrees with you.
So there's a new Rasmussen poll that says if the 2024 election were between Biden and former President Trump, 47% of likely U.S.
voters would vote for Trump, while 40% would vote for Biden.
That's a pretty big difference.
In February, Rasmussen ran the same poll.
And then it was 45% Biden, 42% Trump.
That means that Biden lost five points and Trump gained five points.
That's a big margin.
Now, I would not expect this to last, because it's way too early.
These, you know, the early polls are not that predictive.
But it does give you a sign of the mood of the times.
So, here's the biggest question that people have been asking me lately.
Scott, do you really think that Trump... I mean, seriously, Scott.
Seriously.
You really think that Trump could win in the general election?
Really?
I get that he could win in the primary, because, you know, primaries are unique.
But seriously, Scott?
Seriously?
You really think that Trump could win a general election in 2024?
To which I said, it only matters who he's running against.
He's not running by himself.
He's not running Trump yes or no.
It's an election against another person.
If that other person is Biden, yeah, he could win.
And then people said, but Biden won last time.
Yes, last time Biden had not already destroyed the country.
Don't you think that's the difference?
Don't you think that a few years of watching Biden destroy the country, you don't think that's going to change anyone's mind?
We now have a perfect snapshot of what a Trump administration looks like, sort of generically, and a perfect snapshot of what a Biden administration looks like, somewhat generically.
It's a completely different race.
Before it was unknowns, right?
Before Trump was in office, you didn't know.
It could have been anything that happened.
But now you kind of know.
You kind of know.
Now, here's the question.
Would the election be so rigged that Trump couldn't win if he had that margin?
In my opinion, if the polling, let's say the polling maintained this gap, if the polling, if other pollsters agreed that there was this big gap, you can't cheat that much.
That's too much.
If it came down to, you know, two counties, yeah, you could cheat.
You could cheat in two counties.
If that was, you know, the difference.
But if it's a 47 to 40 kind of situation, I just don't think you could cheat that much and expect to get away with it.
Maybe.
I don't think so.
That would be too much.
So what I expect is that the margins will close before Election Day.
It'll be within 2% and then anything's possible.
In terms of cheating, anything would be possible once it gets to be a tight election on Election Day.
All right.
CNN fact-checked Trump's speech.
He had all the usual fact-check problems, but they're fact-checking the Soros funding connection.
Now, there's no evidence that they cheated.
Let me clarify.
What did not happen last time is that Trump went into it with a huge margin, and then the actual election was super close.
That didn't happen last time.
Do you get that?
That didn't happen last time.
But this time, it's possible.
It's possible that there'll be a big gap going into the election.
You'd have to have a really big gap to make cheating impossible.
You'd agree with that, right?
If the polling is just ridiculous, cheating becomes impractical at that point.
Yeah.
So here's what we know about Soros funding.
So Soros doesn't know Bragg, never met him, never recommended him.
But he did give money to a political action committee that gave some of that money, $500,000, to support Bragg's candidacy.
And we do know that Soros has been involved with funding progressive candidates.
So, it's not technically true that Soros hired Bragg, essentially.
It's more true that Soros does things that guarantees you get a Bragg.
Anthony Sherman asks this question in all caps.
May I repeat his question?
Anthony asks, in all caps, Scott, aren't you a fellow Jew?
Anthony?
Really?
We're going to get rid of you, Anthony.
You know, thank God for caps.
If it were not for the caps lock, you could not identify the truly broken people.
Why do all the broken people signal, I'm a mental case?
And then they say their message with the all caps.
I'm a total mental case.
And now here's my message.
Alright.
So, I guess the CNN fact-checking is technically correct, that Soros didn't specifically say he funded this one guy, but it looks like the claim is correct enough.
You know, if Soros is giving money that he does intend and knows would go to progressive prosecutors, CNN has an editorial that the word woke is being stolen by largely white people and it really is a black word.
Did you know that?
I think the charge is true enough.
I'm going to call it true enough.
But technically untrue.
CNN has an editorial that the word woke is being stolen by largely white people and really it's a black word.
Did you know that?
The word woke has been used by black people for a long time in a slightly different way and And I think they used it, let's see, I think they used woke to mean that you were asleep and then you woke up.
No, I'm just kidding.
They used it to basically keep alert.
Stay woke just meant, you know, be alert, look over your shoulder.
And so a, An editorial commenter said that maybe the white people should stop using that word that way.
They're trying to take your word?
Yeah.
I think that there's obviously some success by the right pushing back against wokeness because they wouldn't try to argue that the word doesn't apply unless the challenge to that body of activities was valid.
How many times do we end up arguing over the definition of a word?
Let's see.
So, Trump either committed a crime or he didn't, based on how you define the word find.
If you thought find votes meant pretend they were there and make them up, he's a criminal.
If you think that somebody who complains that the votes were miscounted says, find votes, it means, oh, count them better or make sure you haven't missed any.
We're really just arguing about what a word means.
How about, what does Soros funded mean?
I mean, that's what the conversation is.
Does Soros funded mean directly or does indirectly count?
What does woke mean?
Now we're arguing what woke means.
Now we're arguing what a woman is.
So we can't decide what a woman is, what the word woke means, what Soros funded means, what the word find means.
So I talk about word thinking all the time, which by the way, you're going to understand a lot better because AI is a word thinker.
The way AI thinks is by figuring out the most predictive word that would follow the next sequence that's already there.
Which is basically thinking by words.
If the sentence makes sense, AI thinks it makes sense.
That's what people do.
When the sentence makes sense, people think that they've talked logic.
And you see that all the time.
There's a whole group of people in the country Who, let's say, would be more close to the artistic side of things than the engineering side of things.
The artistic people think that if the sentence makes sense, the idea makes sense.
It does not.
It does not.
It's just a sentence that could be understood.
If the sentence could be understood, you didn't make a point.
You just said a sentence that could be understood.
And they can't tell the difference.
They actually can't tell the difference.
An engineer can tell the difference.
Oh, the sentence makes sense, but the idea doesn't.
Yeah, you see it all the time.
All right.
Here's my last AI story.
I believe that copyrights will become worthless because of AI.
Here's why.
In the current model, I say, I would like this book by Scott.
So you'd say, oh, I guess I got to buy it because it's copyrighted.
So you buy it.
In the AI world, here's what you're going to say.
I'd like a book by Scott.
Hey, AI, can you go read that book and summarize it for me?
Or just read it to me in your own words.
Is that a copyright problem?
Maybe, but how would you ever know?
If you told AI to go read a book and then read it to you like it was reading an audiobook to you, who would know besides you?
Nobody would know.
You could turn any book into an audiobook just by telling AI to read it to you.
If AI can see it, And every book will be digitized, right?
Every book will be digitized.
And every book will be illegally available somewhere.
Somewhere it'll be illegally available, even if copyrighted.
So, copyrights will be absolutely useless.
Let's say there's a movie that AI could have access to but you haven't seen.
You don't think AI could just reproduce the movie for you?
Might not be exactly the same.
But if AI has watched the movie, or it has access to it, it could go get it.
Or, how about this?
You say to AI, AI, I'd like you to give me a new Marvel superhero movie.
Make it unique, put it in the style of, maybe mention a writer, a writer or producer, you know, put it in the style of this producer and this writer, make it new content.
I'd like a little more focus on Captain America.
I like him featured a little bit more.
And can you replace Iron Man with... And then you would watch an entire two and a half hour movie, fully scripted.
Fully scripted.
And it could be as good as or better than the ones that Hollywood made.
You know why it could be better?
Because you could say, don't make it woke.
Or whatever words you need for AI.
Don't make it woke.
You know, make it more realistic.
And then suddenly, you could have a movie without the wokeness.
Or how about this?
Let's say you bought a movie so it's available to you, you own it.
So you say, AI, can you take the wokeness out of this movie?
Just remove all the woke parts.
And then it just gives you back the movie without the woke parts.
Yeah, that's gonna happen.
So I don't see any, I can't see any world in which copyrights can last more than the next few years.
Would you disagree?
It might be that some things are still copyrighted, but AI could so easily imitate them or steal them without anybody knowing that it would have no value.
There's just no way you'd be able to detect it and enforce it.
So I think that my job probably only has two to three years left.
You know, my job.
So at the moment, AI can't write humor.
Some people say it did some funny things, but it really didn't.
The one reason that I can still write humor better than AI is that I haven't taught AI how to write humor yet.
If I do, it could probably beat me pretty quickly.
But it doesn't know the formula.
The only person who knows the formula is me.
Because I wrote a formula, the six dimensions of humor.
And if you use that formula, or if you taught AI what that formula was, it could write jokes pretty quickly.
But there's one thing it can't do, which it can't judge whether its joke is funny.
That's something I can still do that the computer can't do.
So if I'm writing a joke, and I get to my final punchline, and I look at it, I go, It doesn't make me laugh, so I don't think it'll make you laugh.
So I erase it, try something else, try something else, try something else, and then I laugh.
I literally laugh at it.
I go, oh, that's good.
Then I know you're going to laugh too.
The computer can't do that yet, but it will.
Certainly it will.
All it would need is a huge body of jokes, and it would need to rank them by how much humans actually laughed at each joke, and then it would know what kinds of patterns make people laugh.
And then, with the six dimensions of humor, it could create its own potential jokes, and then once it created it, it could bash it against this database of patterns that actually work for human beings, and it could write jokes.
It can't be more than a year away.
So, I think my job is obsolete pretty soon.
That's what I think.
So, here's another surprise for you.
Do you like audiobooks?
And you like them when the author reads them, right?
Well, here's something you maybe didn't know.
There are a few things that an author hates, hates more than recording an audiobook.
It is really, really unpleasant.
It's the thing I hate more than anything I do.
Anything, actually.
Literally anything.
It's the most hated thing I do.
It's like three days of just, or four days, of hell.
Just talking into a microphone and trying to get every word right and thinking and concentrating too hard.
It's terrible.
Do you know what I could do now?
I could use one of several AI products that already exist, I can feed it the text of my book, and it will read it in a perfect impression of me.
Of me.
It would be irrational for me to ever record an audiobook again.
I'm never going to do it.
There will be audiobooks of mine, but I'm never going to record one again.
It wouldn't make sense.
Because the computer can actually just do a better job of me than I can do of me.
Because if they can match me, you know, for a sentence or two, then it can perfectly match me for the whole book.
And it can certainly match me for a paragraph or two.
But if I do it myself, I can also perfectly match myself for a paragraph, but my voice starts wearing out and my energy gets lower as I record.
So I would never be able to record as well as AI can already imitate my voice.
AI already speaks as Scott better than Scott does.
A lot better.
For long form, a lot better.
It's not even close.
Imperfections need to be built in?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Imperfections don't need to be built in when you buy a form of music.
If you go to a concert, there is imperfection in the performance.
If you buy the streaming music that was made in a studio, the studio... Okay, Gidgey, you're right.
The studio players are sometimes, actually fairly often, not even the artists who made the album.
Because the artists who play it live have a real tough time playing it perfectly.
And nobody cares if it's live.
But for a studio album, you need professional musicians to pretend to be the people who made the album, because they can play it perfectly.
So it's going to be like that.
AI will be your long form speaker.
And then certainly for humans doing anything like this, we will have makeup applied by a filter.
Isn't it weird that Zoom doesn't already have a makeup filter?
Isn't that the most obvious thing Zoom should have?
Where I just hit a button and I've got full makeup on.
Yeah.
All right.
Maybe I am AI already.
All right, has anybody used my insult yet that something is GPT-1 quality?
I told the locals people this.
This is our new insult.
I'll tell the people on YouTube.
If you see somebody who's just being dumb, A good insult that's very timely is, yeah, that's some GPT-1 stuff right there.
Yeah, come back to me when you can get up to GPT-2, and I'll listen to you.
GPT-3, I might be interested.
GPT-4, I might even believe you.
But GPT-1, no, not so much.
All right.
Yeah, that's a GPT-1 quality performance.
Combining all the insults.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, this completes my presentation.